Message-ID:

win-nt from the people who invented edlin. -- MaDsen Wikholm, mwikholm@at8.abo.fi

tech / sci.math / Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M says will corrupt the minds of your children! Why kibo? Because they still teach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and ellipse a conic when it never was.

psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M says will corrupt the minds of your children! Why kibo? Because they still teach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and ellipse a conic when it never was.

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 11:35:25 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>artist
>"psychoceramic" flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS:
> BEWARE! He
> will corrupt the minds of your children!

---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. Panchanathan , present day
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh
Arden Lee Bement Jr.
Rita R. Colwell
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993

Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua

F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.

Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#11-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Kibo Parry Moron of CIA fame said it best in his gay debutante ball post in the NSF Panchanathan Gala Party featuring Kibo spelling bee on words like Kibo's 2017 invention of "analbuttfuckmanure". And his cookbook of "Analbuttfuckmanure burgers". Courtesy of Nick Thompson's Wired magazine of Kibo "almost god" cover picture and Wikipedia entry of mindless cretins of Wikipedia.

Kibo Parry Moron blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
On Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >
> >http://www.netscum.net/fieldsm0.html
> What the hell is this? As if it's not bad enough that we have a fake
> Mao Zhedong here, now we have a fake kibo too?
> Is there a fake xibo and a ~ibo to round out the trinity?
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

> Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
>
>
> Some preliminaries:
>
> Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> in the proof:
>
> ^ x
> |
> -+- <= x=h
> .' | `.
> . | .
> | | |
> ' | '
> `. | .'
> y <----------+ <= x=0
>
> Cone (side view):
> .
> /|\
> / | \
> /b | \
> /---+---' <= x = h
> / |' \
> / ' | \
> / ' | \
> x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> / a | \
>
> Proof:
>
> r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
>
> y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
>
> Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
>
> qed
>

Click here to read the complete article

Ha Ha psychoceramics, more defined than
Dan-O-Matiks same-ness in DC poop.

Archimedes Plutonium schrieb am Freitag, 4. Februar 2022 um 07:10:08 UTC+1:
> psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M says will corrupt the minds of your children! Why kibo? Because they still teach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and ellipse a conic when it never was.
>
> On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 11:35:25 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >artist
> >"psychoceramic" flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> > WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS:
> > BEWARE! He
> > will corrupt the minds of your children!
>
> ---quoting Wikipedia ---
> Controversy
> Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
> --- end quote ---
>
> NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
>
> Dr. Panchanathan , present day
> France Anne Cordova
> Subra Suresh
> Arden Lee Bement Jr.
> Rita R. Colwell
> Neal Francis Lane
> John Howard Gibbons 1993
>
> Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
> Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua
>
> F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley
>
>
> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> •
> •
>
> Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
>
> Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
>
> In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
>
> Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
> #11-2, 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Why is Dan-O-Matik even posting on sci.math. Years
ago people posted long formalizations here on sci.math,

now they can even not list the alphabeth anymore. The
world is getting an idiocracy despite tools like DC poop.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 4. Februar 2022 um 08:33:45 UTC+1:
> Ha Ha psychoceramics, more defined than
> Dan-O-Matiks same-ness in DC poop.
> Archimedes Plutonium schrieb am Freitag, 4. Februar 2022 um 07:10:08 UTC+1:
> > psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M says will corrupt the minds of your children! Why kibo? Because they still teach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and ellipse a conic when it never was.
> >
> > On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 11:35:25 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >artist
> > >"psychoceramic" flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> > > WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS:
> > > BEWARE! He
> > > will corrupt the minds of your children!
> >
> > ---quoting Wikipedia ---
> > Controversy
> > Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
> > --- end quote ---

On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 1:49:43 AM UTC-6, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Why is Dan-O-Matik even posting on sci.math. Years
> ago people posted long formalizations here on sci.math,
>
> now they can even not list the alphabeth anymore. The
> world is getting an idiocracy despite tools like DC poop.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 4. Februar 2022 um 08:33:45 UTC+1:
> > Ha Ha psychoceramics, more defined than
> > Dan-O-Matiks same-ness in DC poop.

Jan, I like the way you asked the question to Dan Christensen, "can you even poop correctly?" I hope Dan replies to that question

Kibo Parry Moron, can Dr. Panchanathan publish his apology in France Cordova's Purdue Univ student newspaper along with Dr. Cordova that they see the light of day and truth about the slant cut in single cone is the OVAL, never the ellipse. Their are truckers blocking Canada's Univ of Ottawa.

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

#11-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. Panchanathan , present day
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh
Arden Lee Bement Jr.
Rita R. Colwell
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993

Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua

F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Click here to read the complete article

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

#11-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Click here to read the complete article

Kibo on Dr.Panchanathan & F.Crim as Senile Chimp Mud Tour
Kibo's nonstop harrassement of Dr.Hanlon Dartmouth-- going on 30 years of nonstop harrassement. Why Kibo, because they cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or are mixed up in mind of slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse.

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 10:53:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>of Math and of Physics
Dr. Philip J. Hanlon
>"Putin's Stooge"
Dr. Panchanathan
> Senile Chimp Mud Tour".

#11-1, 3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

#11-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

#11-3, 24th published book

World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.

Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07NMV8NQQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 20, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1241 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 60 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#11-4, 28th published book

World's First Valid Proof of 4 Color Mapping Problem// Math proof series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Now in the math literature it is alleged that Appel & Haken proved this conjecture that 4 colors are sufficient to color all planar maps such that no two adjacent countries have the same color. Appel & Haken's fake proof was a computer proof and it is fake because their method is Indirect Nonexistence method. Unfortunately in the time of Appel & Haken few in mathematics had a firm grip on true Logic, where they did not even know that Boole's logic is fakery with his 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 depending on which is subtracted. But the grave error in logic of Appel & Haken is their use of a utterly fake method of proof-- indirect nonexistence (see my textbook on Reductio Ad Absurdum). Wiles with his alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is another indirect nonexistence as well as Hales's fake proof of Kepler Packing is indirect nonexistence.
Appel & Haken were in a time period when computers used in mathematics was a novelty, and instead of focusing on whether their proof was sound, everyone was dazzled not with the logic argument but the fact of using computers to generate a proof. And of course big big money was attached to this event and so, math is stuck with a fake proof of 4-Color-Mapping. And so, AP starting in around 1993, eventually gives the World's first valid proof of 4-Color-Mapping. Sorry, no computer fanfare, but just strict logical and sound argument.

Click here to read the complete article

On 2/3/2022 10:09 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M says will corrupt the minds of your children! Why kibo? Because they still teach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and ellipse a conic when it never was.

Roses are red
Brains are for posting
Your Llama's ballsack
Smells like it's roasting

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 10:53:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>of Math and of Physics
Dr. Philip J. Hanlon
>"Putin's Stooge"
Dr. Panchanathan
> Senile Chimp Mud Tour".

#11-1, 3rd published book

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

#11-3, 24th published book

World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.

#11-4, 28th published book

World's First Valid Proof of 4 Color Mapping Problem// Math proof series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Cover picture: Shows four countries colored yellow, red, green, purple and all four are mutually adjacent. And where the Purple colored country is landlocked, so that if it were considered that a 5th color is needed, that 5th color should be purple, hence, 4 colors are sufficient.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PZ2Y5RV
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 23, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1183 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 34 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#11-5, 6th published book

World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.

Preface:
Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.

Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.

Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.

As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#11-6, 19th published book

World's First Proof of Collatz Conjecture// Math proof series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Click here to read the complete article

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 10:53:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>of Math and of Physics
Dr. Philip J. Hanlon
>"Putin's Stooge"
Dr. Panchanathan
> Senile Chimp Mud Tour".

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

#11-3, 24th published book

World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.

#11-4, 28th published book

World's First Valid Proof of 4 Color Mapping Problem// Math proof series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#11-5, 6th published book

World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.

Preface:
Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.

Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.

As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).

#11-6, 19th published book

World's First Proof of Collatz Conjecture// Math proof series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Click here to read the complete article

Science Nobel prizes to AP for achievements of science// Sociology

by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface: This book all came about from a Stanford University poster who nominated AP for a Nobel prize for my physics and mathematics work. For he had been a staunch severe critic of AP for going on 25 years and all of a sudden, here he is nominating AP for a Nobel prize or two. Without that nomination, I doubt I would ever have written this book. But here it is, a book about what AP thinks of the prizes given in science, physics, and math.

Before this book, my attitude towards Nobel prizes is let them die by never awarding AP, the King of Science, just let them die, for no-one in the future will pay any attention to the Nobel prizes for they missed Edison, they missed Tesla, and most important of all, they even missed the King of Science.

But on second thoughts, if AP is awarded Nobel prizes in science, would push the agenda of colonizing Europa, push it front and center stage. And the King of Science has something at stake in this also. For if humanity does not colonize Europa and gets toasted and fried out of existence by the Sun going Red Giant Phase, then even all of AP's work in science is vaporized into oblivion, worse than extinction. For in extinctions there is still the fossil record, but in Red Giant Phase, there is nothing, just oblivion.

So on that score, it behooves me to be a awarded scientist as it will lead others to work on the crucial important sciences that saves Humanity.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of one of the pictures in my house of a Ancient Greek decorated pillar. Normally I would think in a award ceremony I would wear a crown of laurel-leaves like the Ancient Greeks. The best Greek architecture of these pillars I have ever seen though, is some building in Las Vegas where they spared no expense in making a fantastic fabulous building with these decorated pillars. Just eye strikingly beautiful.

----------------------------
Table of Contents
----------------------------

1) My history concerning this topic matter.

2) Very First Nobel prize to AP, in Chemistry, "For the correction of the real true electron of Atoms is the muon of 105MeV stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law and the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole."

3) Second Nobel prize to AP, in Chemistry, "For the research that shows the Sun and Stars shine from Faraday law, not from fusion, and humanity has only a few thousand years to colonize Europa before it is too late".

4) A Medicine Nobel prize to AP, "For Light-waves are perfect-DNA puts a foundation under all of biology."

5) Another Medicine Nobel prize to AP, "For how humans evolved from apes as stonethrowers."

6) A Chemistry Nobel prize to AP, "For the real Lewis Structure is based on 6, not 8, with CO2 having 3 isomers, and for the true Periodic Table of Elements based on 6 elements per row."

7) A Physiology Nobel prize to AP, "For all his mathematics overhaul of Old Math with geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus & many corrections such as slant cut in single cone is oval, never ellipse."

8) Another Chemistry Nobel prize to AP, "For the AP-Electromagnetic laws and their equations, and the Architecture structure of the Atom as toruses."

9) Another Physiology Nobel prize to AP, "For all his Logic overhaul of Old Logic & Old Math."

10) A Physics-II Nobel prize to AP, "For development of the lithium battery operated spacecraft, and thus saving life on Earth by colonizing Europa from the Sun gone Red Giant Phase, for stars shine from Faraday law, not fusion." Here we make a brand new category of Physics Nobel prizes because the old list is 80% in error and unfair to future winners of Nobel physics prizes. Who wants to be on a list of con-artist dumb fakesters of physics. So we split off the old error filled list and start fresh anew with a Physics Nobel prize.

11) Last Nobel prize in Chemistry to AP, as the unfurling of the new Gold Leaf IR telescope at L2, "For the discovery that our Universe is a single gigantic atom of 231Plutonium, the Plutonium Atom Totality Universe." We save the best for last, for we need the proving evidence of Cosmic Rings. Two Cosmic Proton Rings intersected by the Cosmic Muon Ring, something that Caltech's Jarrett started in his mappings of galaxies.

12) Ten science Nobel prizes in all to AP, King of Science, as humanity has its work cut out for itself-- colonize Europa or doomed to worse than extinction-- but oblivion.

Kibo on Dr. Panchanathan & Caltech Thomas F Rosenbaum
On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 11:33:01 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>crazy
>"barking fuckdog"
>flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

#2-1, 137th published book

Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.

Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.

Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Length: 64 pages

Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

#2-2, 145th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.

Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)

#2-3, 146th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)

#2-4, 151st published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969.. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.

Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.

Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1033 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

Click here to read the complete article

#3-1, 2nd published book

True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.

Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.

Length: 1150 pages

Product details
• File Size : 2167 KB
• ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
• Publication Date : March 11, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 1150 pages
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)

#3-2, 50th published book

Geometry of the Chemical Bond; metallic, covalent, ionic//Chemistry Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This is the second book of the Series -- True Chemistry. I left off of True Chemistry with trying to solve the Chemical bond when the proton and muon inside of each and every atom is doing the Faraday Law. And since that book was already 1154 pages long, I decided to start afresh in a second book devoted to solving the Geometry of the chemical bond of metallic, covalent and ionic.
Cover Picture: PHYSICS: Part 2: Extended Version: Halliday & Resnick, 1986, pages 654, 655 talking about Capacitors and my collection of some capacitors in my lab. The first one is a two prong wall plug taken apart to show what the prongs fasten onto when plugged-in (two parallel plates). The next three are spade and socket connectors (two parallel plates). Next is circular or hook plates, and last is a cylinder plate and socket.

Length: 134 pages

Product details
Print Length : 134 pages
Publication Date : June 21, 2019
Word Wise : Enabled
ASIN : B07TCVBD93
File Size : 1308 KB
Language: : English
Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
Simultaneous Device Usage : Unlimited
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Lending : Enabled
 

#3-3, 81st published book

Animal-CO2 of the 3 CO2 isomers// Chemistry Series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

CO2 molecule has 3 isomers. An isomer means same chemical formula but different geometries. The 3 isomers of CO2 come from fire-CO2 and animal-CO2. The fire-CO2 has the carbon atom as central in the molecule and one of the oxygen atoms has a unshared dipole. The animal-CO2 has the carbon atom on the periphery with an unshared dipole.
This is very important chemistry science for it impacts Global Warming but also hugely impacts biology because plants can only live on animal-CO2 and the fire-CO2 is a toxic poison to plants, much like CO is a toxic poison to animals.

Here we learn new facts about the molecules CO, N2, CO2, O2 and even H2O, new facts we never understood before, all because the real electron is the muon stuck inside a proton doing the Faraday Law and that chemical bonding is governed not by electrons but by Dirac magnetic monopoles, and that makes the Lewis structure be based on 6 not 8.

New concepts in chemistry: Lewis structure based on 6, not 8, and the unshared dipole. For a Lewis Structure based on 6, not 8, is the only logical way that the strongest bonded molecules end up being CO and N2. With a Lewis 8 Structure, the strongest bonded molecules, by logic, note, by logic would have to be O2 and FH or possibly FB. However, the proof is that bond dissociation energy of CO is the highest, proving Lewis 6 Structure is the true structure of Chemistry.

source: chem.ucsb.edu

in kJ/mol

CO 1076
N2 946
CO2 532
O2 498
C2 as in diamond is 602 kJ/mol
H2O = 492
OH = 425
H2 = 432

Cover Picture is a winter stored potted clover that I am experimenting with and shows a animal-CO2 molecule going in, and going out is a O2 molecule that animals need to breathe.
Length: 15 pages

Product details
ASIN : B084217LB9
Publication date : January 19, 2020
Language : English
File size : 1042 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Enabled
Print length : 15 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #277,873 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #9 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #52 in General Chemistry & Reference
◦ #297 in Biology (Kindle Store)

#3-4, 38th published book

Hypothesis that Tar restores the Iron in Rust, back to the iron metal object// Chemistry series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Back in 2003 I noticed that while working on my roof, that when I pulled off tar on steel, that the steel was shiny bright iron with no rust while all around where no tar was, was much rust. So that started me to think whether tar acts as a chemical reaction in which it takes the iron atoms out of rust and places those iron-atoms-back-into-the-iron-object. Now that was 2003, and I have not had much time to really dive into experiments on this topic. For one reason-- I have to wait years for the tar to dissolve the rust and perhaps return the iron from iron oxide back into the original iron object. No, I do not have years and I was far too busy with other items of science. But now I plan to do more on this subject. Especially since in 2017 I discovered the real electron of atoms is the muon at 105MeV and real proton is 840MeV, casting brand new light on chemistry and chemical reactions. The iron rust molecule Fe2O3 in New Chemistry where the .5MeV particle is not the electron but is Dirac's magnetic monopole, has to be reviewed in terms of this new found knowledge, and whether or not, tar can return the Fe2 back to the original metal object.

Picture cover: About 5 years ago this hammer and trowel were both iron rusted surfaces, both had iron rust, the trowel worse than the hammer. I put tar on the trowel rusty surface and today with a chisel removed some tar and see the shiny bright iron surface. I suppose if I had coated the hammer back then when I coated the trowel, the hammer would also be bright shiny iron.. So the tar must have done something to not only remove the rust but restore the trowel to "more iron bright shiny surface", some claim (see below in text) that the tar only lifted the rust off the iron surface. I think there is more to it than just adhesion lift, and am thinking the tar takes the iron atoms out of iron oxide and puts the iron atoms back into the original iron object. So this is not a proof by any means, but a hypothesis, and a request for more research.
Length: 32 pages

File Size: 2655 KB
Print Length: 32 pages
Publication Date: April 9, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QK428KN

#3-5, 119th published book

Research Notebook of AP on True Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements based on 6, not the error-filled table of Old Chemistry, Chemistry Series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real true electron of atoms was the muon and this muon is stuck inside its attendant proton. The muon is of 105MeV while the proton is 840 MeV. The particle that JJ Thomson in 1897 discovered was not the electron of atoms but instead was the Dirac magnetic monopole. Such a huge huge mistake throughout all of chemistry and physics, to think the electron was 0.5MeV orbiting around a proton of 938MeV breaks even the angular momentum concept of physics, for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5 MeV particle traveling almost the speed of light around a 938MeV particle just will not stay together. And besides, in that Bohr-Rutherford model of the atom, their subatomic particles have no function, no job, no task, nothing. In that viewpoint of the atom, there is little wonder that their Table of Elements would be mostly error after error after mistake.
Length: 108 pages

Product details
File Size: 1083 KB
Print Length: 108 pages
Publication Date: May 21, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B0891TTP29
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
 

#3-6, 123rd published book

World's first logical teaching of 6.*10^23, Avogadro's number and "mole"; refurbished with "hyasys" as 6.18*10^23 // Chemistry series, book 6
Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: I was worried I did not reach the target audience on this topic of mole and Avogadro's number. The cover picture is a High School physics textbook, a later edition of PSSC that I took when I was in High School circa 1967. It teaches mole and Avogadro's number. So I needed to write this textbook starting High School, because it is shameful to teach wrong science in either High School or University.

Click here to read the complete article

Jan Burse on NSF Dr Panchanathan as Drag Queen. Must be popular over there in Zurich Switzerland, eh Jan Burse.

Kibo Parry M says Dr.Hales a fucking barkdog, why kibo?? Because he fails geometry with his slant cut in single cone as ellipse when in reality it is the Oval? Or is it because he is too dumb to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 11:02:13 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"fucking barkdog"
>flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> of Math and of Physics
>"Drag Queen of Science"
> "Uh Mum, Ride a Colt Penis".

#6-1, 144th published book

Revised Modern Euclidean Geometry with Quantized Angle, Irrational number values, and Triangle Integration Theory// Math Research series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This is AP's first book in math research series. The book came about from research into the parallelepiped for which a quantized angle was required. It quickly escalated into a theorem that Old Math never had-- all triangles require at least one of its 6 parts = 3 sides + 3 angles, be a irrational number valued part. That caused me to hunt for a proof. And the spectacular fallout of all this research ends up explaining why physics has atomic spectral lines and white light is broken into a rainbow of colors. Further, this research forces us to revise all of Old Math Geometry to include not only quantized space but the quantized angle.
Length: 72 pages

Product details
• File size : 752 KB
• Publication date : November 15, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 72 pages
• ASIN : B08NMZ34LK
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Language: : English
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #300,548 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #80 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #633 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
◦ #644 in Physics (Kindle Store)

#6-2, 150th published book

Proof Research into Cylinder, Cone, Sphere, Ellipsoid, Ovoid, Torus; fixing the mistakes of Apollonius and Euclid // Math Research series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface: As AP was about to begin writing TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS for 1st year College, I ran into a big snag. For the physics textbook followed the history of physics which followed the history of the most important math equations related to physics. And trying to start the first chapter, I realized I had too many gaps and holes of omission of the proofs of cone and torus and a well defined oval. So I could not start that physics textbook until it was crystal clear and firm in my own mind of all the mathematics of geometry proofs and formulas for volume of cylinder, cone, sphere, torus and the math forms of x^2/A^2 for curved-line figures. Mind you, I am talking of the proofs of these formulas, not just the recognition by memorization of the formula. And in the midst of this research, several spectacular discoveries resulted (1) new formula of toruses (2) well-defined oval (3) corrections to Apollonius such as conic configuration is <> and not apex to apex >< (4) that ellipse equalled 2 hyperbolas, and a oval equalled 2 parabolas (5) the nonexistence of NonEuclidean geometries (6) a brand new Coordinate System on Conic Configuration (7) correcting Euclid's parallel postulate.

I had to be a master of the geometry, both proofs and math, of math form A = BCD and math form x^2/A^2 in order to begin writing the 1st year college physics textbook, TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS.
So I made this detour into this research book of conics before writing 1st year college physics.

And to my spectacular surprise, I ended up revising not only Apollonius's great work of Ancient Greek geometry, but also ended up revising Euclid's great work of Ancient Greek geometry.

Cover picture: My iphone photograph of Internet Google search of a cube is composed of 6 square-pyramids. Focus in on the picture of the interior diagonals outlining the 6 interior square-pyramids.

Product details
• ASIN : B0918XDRB7
• Publication date : March 28, 2021
• Language : English
• File size : 1206 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 349 pages
• Lending : Enabled

#6-3, 160th published book

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 76 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface:
A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.

The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.

The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.

Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.

I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds question of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1147 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 62 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

#7-1, 39th published book

AP Atom Model replacing the Rutherford-Bohr Atom Model (Physics series for High School Book 1) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Release in General Chemistry & Reference

The Rutherford and Bohr model of the Atom is seen now as fake physics. And it will take a lot of time before that nonsense is removed and replaced in science textbooks and classrooms for a truer model of the Atom. So to accelerate that movement towards the truth of what the Atom is, I present this short book for High School. In the age of the Internet, when we discover true science but am teaching fake science, we need a process to quicken the exit of fake science. Not to wait around for 50 years to be teaching the true science, we should be teaching the true science as fast as possible and to remove the fake science in our school curriculums in a timely and orderly manner. So this small book is a pattern for future removal of fake science from school curriculums. This small book explains what the Rutherford-Bohr model was and why it was phony science. And I explain what replaces the Rutherford-Bohr model with the AP model of the Atom. So the pattern is -- show both -- and then authors of texts will eliminate the fake science until it is a passing footnote.

Cover Picture is a coil and a bar magnet and a galvanometer that measures the current produced as the bar magnet is thrust through the coil. This is Faraday's Law and needs to be taught in High School.
Length: 12 pages

Click here to read the complete article

Would Dr.Panchanathan and Fleming Crim be psychoceramics today if they had read AP's Mathopedia, question asked of James Kibo Parry M. And kibo, how much is the silly fool Dr. Panchanathan paying you to stalk AP-- for I hope it is 0 dollars, otherwise Dr. Panchanathan is a corrupt scientist.

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 77 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor
by Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 14Jan2022. And this is AP's 160th book of Science.

The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.

Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.

I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

----------------------------
Table of Contents
----------------------------

1) Introduction

2) List of 77 errors, mistakes and fakes of Old Math.

3) Appendix

---------
Text
---------

1) Introduction

Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak, the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science because it has this "peak of calculus", unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete to its peak of calculus understanding. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes because the peak of math is going nowhere. And even though Physics will find new science such as how the proton toruses inside of atoms are configured in geometry, the geometry and calculus used in that configuration, that new science does not change nor does it create or require a new math peak/summit to handle the new physics.

Now I do need to discuss the errors of Math in general and the errors of math in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in partial form in most of AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide and orientation, and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and what math to steer clear of.

Errors mostly, but not always, for some are included because too much time spent on them.

The listings in Mathopedia of errors, mistakes and fakes is based on the idea that Calculus is the supreme achievement of all of mathematics for it is the essential math of doing Physics electricity and magnetism. And in order to have a proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, we must clean up and clean out all the mistakes, fakes and errors of Old Math, erstwhile, we have no Calculus. So calculus is the consistency maker for the rest of all of mathematics.

2) List of 77 errors, mistakes and fakes of Old Math.

1) Calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, a proof that derivative and integral are inverses of one another, just as addition and subtraction are inverses, or, multiplication and division are inverses. The only way to obtain a geometry proof is to clean up and clean out all the fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math, such as their fake numbers-- the Reals. Their fake definition of function allowing anything be a function. Their fakery of a continuum when even physics by 1900 with Planck onwards in Quantum Mechanics proving the Universe is discrete Space not a continuum, yet by 1900 onwards those in mathematics following the idiotic continuum in the Continuum Hypothesis with even more avid interest, when they should have thrown the continuum on a trash-pile of shame.

2) The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers, because you have to need and apply one mechanism only to obtain the true numbers of mathematics-- Mathematical Induction. In Old Math they had just a tiny few intelligent mathematicians, Kronecker, who emerged from the gaggle crowd of kooks to notice that Naturals all come from one single mechanism-- Mathematical Induction. But Old Math never had a crowd of mathematicians with logical brains to say-- all our numbers need to come from the one mechanism of Mathematical Induction.

3) The true numbers of math have empty space between successor and predecessor numbers. For example the 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . . , 9.8, 9.9, 10..0. Where no numbers exist between .1 and .2, etc. Only discrete numbers allow us to give a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

4) All functions of mathematics must be a polynomial, and if not a polynomial, convert the offering to a polynomial over a specific interval.

Where is that stupid thread in sci.math, poising as a puzzle problem when it had no functions only pretend functions?

A few days back, 11Aug2021 appeared a stupid puzzle problem here in sci.math. Of someone pretending he had 3, 4 even 5 or 6 functions and wanting to prove equality.

Then I stepped into the conversation saying he had no functions at all, until they are converted into polynomials over a specified interval, then you can do calculus on those true real functions.

So, the world wide math community has got to begin to learn, no function is a function, until, and unless they are polynomials. This is an axiom of math and is proven true by the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. You cannot have a FTC, if you have functions that are not polynomials.

So there is a trade off-- does math want calculus or no calculus? If you want calculus, all your functions have to be polynomials. This has to do with the concept of discrete geometry, not a continuum, for polynomials are discrete.

5) Space is discrete and all lines in space are strings of attached straight lines.

6) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
We can still keep the name "curve" as long as we know it is a string of fine tiny straightline segments strung together in what looks like a smooth curve. If curves exist, then the Calculus in Fundamental Theorem of Calculus cannot be proven and thus Calculus does not exist. We all know that we have to have Calculus, and so we throw out onto the trash-pile the curve of Old Math. And this is reasonable because starting in 1900 in physics there arose the Quantum Mechanics of Space being discrete. And a discrete space has no continuum, has no curve of Old Math.

7) Space has gaps in between one point and the next point. These gaps are empty space from one point to the next point, for example in 10 Grid there is no number between .1 and .2, and in 100 Grid there exists no number between .01 and .02.

8) Limit analysis was an insane fakery in Old Math, concocted because Old Math needed the excuse of some proof, so they invented the monster con-artist trick that a limit analysis would divert the fact it is no proof at all, but a Non Sequitur argument. Limit analysis is juju totem witchcraft dance around a desire to prove the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Just as idiotic as dancing around a sick person of a virus is going to cure the person. Analyzing something is not the same as proving "that something".

sci.physics

Archimedes Plutonium the special one
by james kibo

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney says of Conde Nast's Nicholas Thompson, he cannot do percentages like Kibo Parry Moroney, so what is kibo Parry Moroney even doing here in sci.math or sci.physics??
by Budd Hakken

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney says Lisa Randall, John Baez, abject failures of Math, and supposedly physics with their ignorance of angular momentum because no hydrogen atom can form from proton=938MeV & electron = 0.5MeV
By Betsy Kibo Moroney Perry DeVos Anal Manure Buttfuck

Re: The adorned PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 133 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor by Archimedes Plutonium Preface: A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics.
by
Michael Moroney

Apr 11, 2022, 12:00:47 PM

Re: Drs.L. Reif, Victor Kac, Irwin Pless of MIT, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
by
Michael Moroney

Feb 1, 2018, 9:21:53 PM

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
sci.math
Re: 5) AP's 174th book// Mathopedia-- Listing of 67 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. Last revision was 8JUN2021. Under-Construction: AP recently is reinventing Multivariable Calculus, and will end up throwing out Old Math's Gradient theorem, Green's
by
Michael Moroney
Jun 17, 2021, 11:57 AM

Re: 30) AP's 174th book// Mathopedia-- Listing of 70 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. Last revision was 28JUN2021. Preface: I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held
by Michael Moroney Jul 3, 2021, 12:55:10 PM

Re: l) AP's 175th book//Physicsopedia-- Listing of 125 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics. New entrees under construction: AP is reinventing Multivariable Calculus so that AP throws on the trash pile the Green's theorem, Gradient theorem, Stokes
by Michael Moroney Jun 13, 2021, 4:47:35 PM

F.Fleming Crim

Brian Stone

James S. Olvestad

Dorothy E. Aronson

Dept of Education

Miguel Cardona

Cindy Marten

#2-1, 137th published book

Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

#2-2, 145th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#2-3, 146th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#2-4, 151st published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Click here to read the complete article

Why Panchanathan needs to depart NSF-- for one could engrave inside his brain that a cone has 1 axis of symmetry, a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, and a oval has 1 axis of symmetry and yet the sickfuck failure Panchanathan will continue to teach ellipse is a conic section

Dr. Panchanathan, the analbuttfuckmanure at NSF, how much does he pay the sickfuck Kibo to stalk people for 30 years nonstop. Yes Panchanathan you are not a scientist, but a corrupt fuckdog if you pay Kibo to stalk. Mindless education jackarses.
>
>
>
> sci.physics
>
> Archimedes Plutonium the special one
> by james kibo
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney says of Conde Nast's Nicholas Thompson, he cannot do percentages like Kibo Parry Moroney, so what is kibo Parry Moroney even doing here in sci.math or sci.physics??
> by Budd Hakken
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney says Lisa Randall, John Baez, abject failures of Math, and supposedly physics with their ignorance of angular momentum because no hydrogen atom can form from proton=938MeV & electron = 0.5MeV
> By Betsy Kibo Moroney Perry DeVos Anal Manure Buttfuck
> Re: The adorned PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 133 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor by Archimedes Plutonium Preface: A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics.
> by
> Michael Moroney
>
> Apr 11, 2022, 12:00:47 PM
> Re: Drs.L. Reif, Victor Kac, Irwin Pless of MIT, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
> by
> Michael Moroney
>
> Feb 1, 2018, 9:21:53 PM
>
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> sci.math
> Re: 5) AP's 174th book// Mathopedia-- Listing of 67 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. Last revision was 8JUN2021. Under-Construction: AP recently is reinventing Multivariable Calculus, and will end up throwing out Old Math's Gradient theorem, Green's
> by
> Michael Moroney
> Jun 17, 2021, 11:57 AM
>
> Re: 30) AP's 174th book// Mathopedia-- Listing of 70 fakes and mistakes of Old Math. Last revision was 28JUN2021. Preface: I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held
> by Michael Moroney Jul 3, 2021, 12:55:10 PM
>
>
>
> Re: l) AP's 175th book//Physicsopedia-- Listing of 125 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics. New entrees under construction: AP is reinventing Multivariable Calculus so that AP throws on the trash pile the Green's theorem, Gradient theorem, Stokes
> by Michael Moroney Jun 13, 2021, 4:47:35 PM
>
>
>
> Dr. Panchanathan, the analbuttfuckmanure at NSF, how much does he pay the sickfuck Kibo to stalk people for 30 years nonstop. Yes Panchanathan you are not a scientist, but a corrupt fuckdog if you pay Kibo to stalk.
>
> F.Fleming Crim
>
> Brian Stone
>
> James S. Olvestad
>
> Dorothy E. Aronson
>
> Dept of Education
>
> Miguel Cardona
>
> Cindy Marten
>
>
>
>
> #2-1, 137th published book
>
> Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
> This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
>
> Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
>
> Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> Length: 64 pages
>
> Product details
> • File Size : 790 KB
> • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print Length : 64 pages
> • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Language: : English
> • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> • Lending : Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
>
> #2-2, 145th published book
> TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> • Language: : English
> • File size : 682 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print length : 78 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
>
> #2-3, 146th published book
>
> TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
>
>
> #2-4, 151st published book
>
> TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
>
> Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
>
> Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
> ◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)
> #2-5, 174th published book
>
> TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
>
> Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
> Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> #2-6, 177th published book
> TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
> Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
>
>
> #2-7, 178th published book
>
> TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)
>
>
> Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.
>
> The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.
>
> Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book.. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
>
>
>
> #2-9, 161st published book
>
> PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 133 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> Preface:
> A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.
> It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.
> Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09N18QPP1
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 3, 2021
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1139 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 82 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
>
>
>
> y z
> | /
> | /
> |/______ x
>
> More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci..physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
>
> In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
>
> I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
>
> There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
>
> Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> Archimedes Plutonium
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Panchanathan, the analbuttfuckmanure at NSF, how much does he pay the sickfuck Kibo to stalk people for 30 years nonstop. Yes Panchanathan you are not a scientist, but a corrupt fuckdog if you pay Kibo to stalk. Mindless education jackarses are Panchanathan, Crim, Stone, Olvestad, Aronson, Cardona, Marten with their ellipse a conic when it is a oval, their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, their mindless, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their suppression and liaring the truth of physics, unable in their stupidity to even ask the question, which is the Atom's true electron-- the muon or the 0.5MeV particle. Such arsewipes as these of education foster and push idiocy of James Kibo Parry, Panchanathan, Cordona that they preach and teach 938 is 12% short of 945, that geothermal is not radioactive decay in Earth mantle, that limit analysis substitutes as proof of calculus, that Boole's logic is alright for the jackarse Panchanathan and Cordona of AND truth table TFFF when it should be TTTF, for it is okay that the jackarse Panchanathan, Dr Hanlon at Dartmouth, Dr. Tao and Dr. Block at UCLA teach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction all becuase these shitheads of education never want to admit the truth of science.
>
> F.Fleming Crim
>
> Brian Stone
>
> James S. Olvestad
>
> Dorothy E. Aronson
>
> Dept of Education
>
> Miguel Cardona
>
> Cindy Marten

Click here to read the complete article

Kibo on Dr.Panchanathan and Univ Dayton Elizabeth Smith 🦨 of Physics
On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 1:58:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 🦇 of Math and 🦨 of Physics
>"Drag Queen of Math"

Kibo, how much does NSF Dr. Panchanathan pay you to stalk Usenet??
---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. Panchanathan , present day

> Kibo Parry M on mindless fuckdog Todd B Smith Univ Dayton,Elizabeth Smith,Ivan Sudakow,Perry Yaney. Why Kibo?? Is it because he never asks the question which is the atom's real true electron??
> No need, everyone knows it's the 511 kev particle named the electron.
> The muon isn't even in the running, it's too unstable with a 2.2
> microsecond half-life.
> > autism meltdown going to see the Pope
> Are you having yet another autism meltdown? You're going to see the
> pope, too? Sorry for triggering your autism meltdown (again). I admit it
> is fun to watch your autism meltdowns. Maybe that's wrong, but you do
> keep attacking me. Did you know that when attacked, I strike back?
> > In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry,
> Of course, an actual high school student recognizes that an equation
> like (x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2 has TWO axes of symmetry, and is, in fact, the
> formula for an ellipse. One axis around the y=0 plane and one around the
> x=1 (NOT x=0) plane.
> > and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.
> Whose "truth"? Your delusional beliefs or actual truths, like the
> ellipse being a conic section?
> >
> >>> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse.
> If you have an actual proof of that, why not show it? Right now you are
> in a tie for who is more dumb, stoopid, delusional and bone-headed
> STUBBORN: You or Mitch Raemsch.

On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 1:33:45 AM UTC-6, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Ha Ha psychoceramics, more defined than
> Dan-O-Matiks same-ness in DC poop.
>
> Archimedes Plutonium schrieb am Freitag, 4. Februar 2022 um 07:10:08 UTC+1:
> > psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M says will corrupt the minds of your children! Why kibo? Because they still teach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and ellipse a conic when it never was.
> >
> > On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 11:35:25 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >artist
> > >"psychoceramic" flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> > > WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS:
> > > BEWARE! He
> > > will corrupt the minds of your children!
> >
> > ---quoting Wikipedia ---
> > Controversy
> > Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
> > --- end quote ---
> >
> > NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
> >
> > Dr. Panchanathan , present day
> > France Anne Cordova
> > Subra Suresh
> > Arden Lee Bement Jr.
> > Rita R. Colwell
> > Neal Francis Lane
> > John Howard Gibbons 1993
> >
> > Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
> > Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua
> >
> > F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley
> >
> >
> > 3rd published book
> >
> > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > •
> > •
> >
> > Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
> >
> > Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
> >
> > In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
> >
> > Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
> > • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> > #11-2, 11th published book
> >
> > World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> > Preface:
> > Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Kibo> I want to fuck her corpseNSF Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Dorothy E Aronson,Dr.Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, Brian Stone, James S Olvestad

Kibo Parry's nymshifter Moroney-Volney open hate line of 30 year nonstop stalking
On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 3:14:40 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney (open hate line by James Kibo Parry 30 year paid stalker) wrote:
>"Drag Queen of Science"
> I want to fuck her corpse
>
> Not again!
>
> I want to fuck her corpse
>
> You already said that.
>
> I want to fuck her corpse
>
> You're really sick, Pluto!
>
> wanting to fuck her corpse
>
> I want to fuck her corpse
>
> I want to fuck her corpse

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. Panchanathan , present day
NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Olvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh
Arden Lee Bement Jr.
Rita R. Colwell
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993

Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua


> "I want to fuck her corpse" sci.math--Sergio,Susanne Schneider,Metin Tolan,Anja Karliczek,Susanne Schneider,Steffen Schumann, Cynthia A. Volkert are they forever going to be mindless idiots of math--slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse geometry.
>
> Wolfgang Mueckenheim is this taking place at Stanford Univ and we should ask Earle Jones which building or is it in Germany at Hilbert's Hotel????
>
>
> WM,Susanne Schneider,Metin Tolan,Anja Karliczek,Susanne Schneider,Steffen Schumann, Cynthia A. Volkert are they forever going to be mindless idiots of math--slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse geometry.
> And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> ......./\E
> ...../ c.\
> F / .......\
>
> entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.
> Are they trying to turn sci.math into a gay pick up bar rather than legitimate math with endless day after day spam?
>
> Sergi 628 "Questions on .."
> Sergi_o 68, "Questions on...."
> Wolfgang Mueckenheim 324 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
> of the fine Bacarisse cheese
> Ben Bacarisse 323 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
> FromTheRafters (more like gutters) 221 "Two similar..."
> Sergi_o 161 "Two similar..."
> Ben Bacarisse 133, "Two similar properties..."
> WM turning Gottingen Germany into geometry failures.
> Kibo chasing corpses in WM gay pick up bar, for Kibo sure does not know the difference between Oval and ellipse as seen in his latest stupidity-- a revolving axis as Kibo the moron and BWR describes it--
>
> Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed.
> > > >>> .......A
> > > >>> ....../.\E
> > > >>> ...../.C.\
> > > >>> ..../B....\
> > > >>> .../.......\
> > > >>> .F/....G....\
> > >
> > > You chose point C to be the intersection of line segment EF and the axis
> > > of the cone AG. As you say segment EC is smaller than CF. Not in
> > > dispute. But that doesn't show that the intersecting curve isn't
> > > symmetric around EF. C is not the center of EF. To see if the
> > > intersection figure is symmetric around EF, you obviously have to start
> > > at the center, the halfway point of EF. Here I called it B, and the
> > > length BE = length BF. Now you need to show that the curve is or is not
> > > symmetric around B. That the width at B+d is or is not = the width at
> > > B-d, as bwr stated. Not quite as simple.
> >
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 12:00:31 AM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> > Enjoy!
>
> 
>
> WM
> , …
> Sergi o
> 628
>
> unread,
> Question on Hilbert's Hotel.
> On 1/17/2023 3:48 AM, WM wrote: > Ben Bacarisse schrieb am Dienstag, 17. Januar 2023 um 01:37:46
> 10:19 PM
>
>
> 
>
> WM
> , …
> Ben Bacarisse
> 46
>
> unread,
> Equal Rights!
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.t...@gmail.com> writes: > 2 is missing
> 9:33 PM
>
> 
> > > > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 12:14:29 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > >"certifiably insane"
> > > > > > Necrophile
> > > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You already said that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You sicko! Why do you keep saying that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wanting to fuck her corpse
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > > > > >
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> > > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
> > Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> > > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
> > Or did Kibo Parry M. fail out of Rensselaer Polytech for he is brain dead in geometry, cannot see nor understand a slant cut of cylinder is a ellipse, but never a cone.
> > > Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
> > >
> > >
> > > Some preliminaries:
> > >
> > > Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> > > in the proof:
> > >
> > > ^ x
> > > |
> > > -+- <= x=h
> > > .' | `.
> > > . | .
> > > | | |
> > > ' | '
> > > `. | .'
> > > y <----------+ <= x=0
> > >
> > > Cone (side view):
> > > .
> > > /|\
> > > / | \
> > > /b | \
> > > /---+---' <= x = h
> > > / |' \
> > > / ' | \
> > > / ' | \
> > > x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> > > / a | \
> > >
> > > Proof:
> > >
> > > r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
> > >
> > > y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
> > >
> > > Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
> > >
> > > qed
> > >
>
>
>
> On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 2:58:49 PM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 9/29/2022 10:19 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >"antiscience"
> >> I want to fuck her corpse
> > >
> > > Once again, it looks like I triggered another autism meltdown by
> >is into necrophilia... Wow! Talk about learning
> > something new everyday! ;^o
> Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
> Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
>
> Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
>
> Gottingen Univ math
>
> Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
>
> Eternal-September.org
> Wolfgang M. Weyand
> Berliner Strasse
> Bad Homburg
>
> Goethe Universitat Physics dept
>
> Brigitta Wolff president
>
> Jurgen Habermass
> Horst Stocker
> Gerd Binnig
> Horst Ludwig Stormer
> Peter Grunberg
>
> math
> Alex Kuronya
> Martin Moller
> Jakob Stix
> Annette Werner
> Andreas Bernig
> Esther Cabezas-Rivas
> Hans Crauel
> Thomas Gerstner
> Bastian von Harrach
> Thomas Mettler
> Tobias Weth
> Amin Coja-Oghlan
> Raman Sanyal
> Thorsten Theobald
> Yury Person
>
>
> Gottingen Univ physics
> Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
> Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
> Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
> Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
> Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
> Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
> Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
> Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
> Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
> apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
> Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
> Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
> Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
> Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
> Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
> Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
> Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
> Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
> Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
> Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
> Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
> apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
> Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
> Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
> apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
> Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
> apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
> Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
> Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
> Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
> Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
> Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
> Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
> apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
> Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
> Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
> apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
> Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
> Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
> Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
> Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
> Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius
>
> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> •
> •
>
> Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
>
> Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
>
> In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
> • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> #12-2, 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis".. And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
>
> To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
> #12-3, 24th published book
>
>
> World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.
>
> Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07NMV8NQQ
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 20, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1241 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 60 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
> #12-4, 28th published book
>
> World's First Valid Proof of 4 Color Mapping Problem// Math proof series, book 4 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Now in the math literature it is alleged that Appel & Haken proved this conjecture that 4 colors are sufficient to color all planar maps such that no two adjacent countries have the same color. Appel & Haken's fake proof was a computer proof and it is fake because their method is Indirect Nonexistence method. Unfortunately in the time of Appel & Haken few in mathematics had a firm grip on true Logic, where they did not even know that Boole's logic is fakery with his 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 depending on which is subtracted. But the grave error in logic of Appel & Haken is their use of a utterly fake method of proof-- indirect nonexistence (see my textbook on Reductio Ad Absurdum). Wiles with his alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is another indirect nonexistence as well as Hales's fake proof of Kepler Packing is indirect nonexistence.
> Appel & Haken were in a time period when computers used in mathematics was a novelty, and instead of focusing on whether their proof was sound, everyone was dazzled not with the logic argument but the fact of using computers to generate a proof. And of course big big money was attached to this event and so, math is stuck with a fake proof of 4-Color-Mapping. And so, AP starting in around 1993, eventually gives the World's first valid proof of 4-Color-Mapping. Sorry, no computer fanfare, but just strict logical and sound argument.
>
> Cover picture: Shows four countries colored yellow, red, green, purple and all four are mutually adjacent. And where the Purple colored country is landlocked, so that if it were considered that a 5th color is needed, that 5th color should be purple, hence, 4 colors are sufficient.
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PZ2Y5RV
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 23, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1183 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 34 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
>
>
>
> #12-5, 6th published book
>
> World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
>
> Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
>
> Preface: Truthful proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
>
> Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
>
> Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
>
> As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> • Best Sellers Rank: #4,327,817 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #589 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #3,085 in Number Theory (Books)
>
>
>
>
>
> #12-6, 19th published book
>
> World's First Proof of Collatz Conjecture// Math proof series, book 6 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 19th published book.
>
> Preface: Old Math's Collatz conjecture, 1937, was this: If you land on an even number, you divide by 2 until you come to an odd number. If you come to or land on an odd number, you do a 3N+1 then proceed further. The conjecture then says that no matter what number you start with, it ends up being 1.
>
> What the Collatz proof of math tells us, is that so very often mathematicians pose a conjecture in which their initial formulation of the conjecture is murky, obfuscation and poorly designed statement. Such poorly designed statements can never be proven true or false. An example that comes to mind of another poorly designed conjecture is the No Odd Perfect Conjecture, in which the statement is obfuscation of factors. So for the odd number 9, is it 1+3, or is it 1+ 3 + 3. So when a mathematics conjecture is full of obfuscation and error in the statement, then these type of conjectures never have a proof. And takes a person with a logical mind to fix and straighten out the conjecture statement and then provide a proof, thereof.
>
> A return to my Collatz proof in 2022, allowed me a second proof of Collatz with only 3N+1, in a mathematical induction proof, using the Decimal Grid System of Numbers. The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid System Numbers and this allows a Collatz proof of stand alone 3N+1.
>
> Cover picture: when I think of Collatz, I think of a slide, a slide down and so my French curve is the best slide I can think of, other than a slide-ruler, but a slide ruler is slide across.
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PS98K5H
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 16, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1990 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 113 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #212,131 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #4 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #9 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #32 in Number Theory (Books)
>
>
>
>
> #12-7, 20th published book
> World's First Proofs that No Perfect Cuboid Exists// Math proof series, book 7 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Someone on the Internet posed the unproven No Perfect Cuboid, and so I took up the challenge. I am usually a sucker for geometry riddles, more so than number theory. So I obliged. Then by 2014 I proved the matter and looking back at it now in 2019, I really really do not see what all the fuss was about-- that it was not that hard not hard at all. You just have to look carefully at sets of 4 right triangles and find an Impossibility Construction, why you cannot have those 4 right triangles all with positive integer numbers for their 3 sides. But the proof method is so hugely important in math-- impossibility of construction. And, please, do not confuse that method with Reductio Ad Absurdum, for RAA is not a valid proof method in mathematics (see my logic book on RAA). But, the method of Impossible Construction, although it might look like RAA, is totally different and fully valid in all aspects.
>
> But now, in hindsight in March 2019, writing this up, I see a very close connection of No Perfect Cuboid to that of Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem with its equation of A^x + B^y = C^z and the way I proved Generalized FLT was with "condensed rectangles" and the No Perfect Cuboid is a 3rd Dimension object but it is 4 rectangles of 4 right triangles we inspect. And we can pursue that connection between Generalized FLT and No Perfect Cuboid further, but not now.
>
> Cover Picture: Is that of 4 rectangular boxes, 2 of which are cubes sitting atop a book page of the Cubic Set for the Transuranium Atoms, from the textbook "The Elements Beyond Uranium" , Seaborg, Loveland, 1990. I am always looking for connections.
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PMZQNNT
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 16, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1382 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 61 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> #12-8, 21st published book
>
> World's First Proofs of Mathematics Oldest Unsolved Problems: No Odd Perfect and Finiteness of Perfect Numbers // Math proof series, book 8 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 26Apr2021. And this is AP's 21st published book.
>
> Preface: Now my history with these proofs goes back to 1991 to 1993, and have been finessing the proofs ever since. Some math proofs just nag nag and nag you. They just cannot be settled still. Their proof is a tiny tiny sliver of impossibility that is easily overlooked. Like an optical illusion that you are mislead into, or like those pictures where you look at it one way and you see a young lady and another way you see a very old lady.
>
> Now the No Odd Perfect Number is not a important proof in mathematics but mostly a spectacle for it does not teach much beyond making proper correct definitions. And murky definitions is what held a proof of No Odd Perfect, other than 1, held it back. The murky definition of factors, do we include 1 or not include, for example the odd number 9, do we include 3 twice or once for that we have 1* 9 and we have 3*3 and Old Math looked at that as 1 + 3, whereas I would look at that as 1 + 3 + 3. So when you have messy definitions, murky and messy, of course no proof will be found in over 2,000 years.
>
> Cover Picture: Shows our modern day new reality of the situation where the definition of "perfect" was a Ancient Greek idea, steeped in murky messy idea of factors and when to add factors, that no longer is suitable for mathematics.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PN1CPRP
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 16, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1534 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 28 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
>
> #12-9, 15th published book
>
> World's First Proofs of Infinitude of Twin-Primes, and Polignac Proved // Math proof series, book 9 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Circa 1991-1993, I gave an Old Math style of proof for the Infinitude of Twin Primes, modeling my proof as to a Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof. But then came year 2009 when I found the way to make Infinity concept well-defined. Up until 2009, no-one in the world had a clear precise definition or understanding of what "infinity" was or what it means. It means a borderline between finite and infinite and the way to find this borderline is to use the Tractrix when the unit-tractrix area catches up with the area inside a unit circle is the infinity borderline and it happens to be when pi digits have three zeroes in a row, does the tractrix area equal the circle area-- hence, we reached infinity border and beyond are infinite numbers, no longer finite numbers. What that discovery does for proofs of infinitude is change all those proofs dramatically. And here in Twin-Primes and Polignac I show the reader how modern day New Math proves infinitude of any set of numbers.
>
>
> Cover Picture: Is a picture of the first five twin-primes.
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PMY1YWB
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 15, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1642 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 9 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
> #12-10, 16th published book
>
> World's First Proofs of Goldbach, Legendre, Staircase Conjectures// Math proof series, book 10 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> AP proved the Goldbach Conjecture starting 1993 where the Algebra Columns is the bedrock-key of the proof involved. The Algebra Column Array is the tool and no-one was going to prove Goldbach unless they had that tool, which the 2014 post of mine makes the array tool crystal clear. So starting 1993, I posted to sci.math about Array or Algebra Column which as a tool would render all proofs of this nature. The Goldbach conjecture historically dates back to 1742, and the Legendre conjecture dates 1752-1833. The Staircase conjecture is a wholly new conjecture proposed by AP circa 2016.
>
> Cover: Is a Algebra Column Array sequence starting with 6 Array and then 8 Array.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PS6MR48
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 15, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1740 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 36 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #148,852 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #4 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> #38 in Number Theory (Books)
> #7 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
>  
>
> #12-11, 25th published book
>
> Disproof of Riemann Hypothesis // Math proof series, book 11 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 31Oct2021. This is AP's 25th book of science.
>
> Preface: The Riemann Hypothesis was a conjecture never able to be proven and for good reason, for it was the last symptom of a rampant disease inside of mathematics. Old Math did not have the true numbers that compose mathematics. Old Math had a rag-tag ugly collection of fake numbers with their Reals, their Negative numbers compounded with Rationals compounded with Irrationals and then adding on the Imaginary. These are fake numbers, when the true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers. Because Old Math uses fake numbers, is the reason that Riemann Hypothesis just languished, languished and languished. You cannot prove something riddled in fakery. Below I demonstrate why having fake numbers in math, creates fake proofs, fake theorems, and creates a conjecture that can never be proven.
>
> Cover picture: Riemann Hypothesis deals with fake numbers of mathematics. When what is needed is the true numbers-- Decimal Grid Numbers. We learn Decimal Grid Numbers when very young, when just toddlers, wood counting blocks. All the true numbers of mathematics come from Mathematical Induction-- counting. Mathematical Induction is utterly absent in the Riemann Hypothesis, when it should be central to the hypothesis.
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PVDS1RC
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 20, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1475 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 58 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Best Sellers Rank: #5,118,638 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #643 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #1,398 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #3,559 in Number Theory (Books)
>  
> #12-12, 152nd published book
> The 6th Regular Polyhedron-- hexagonal faces at infinity is nonexistent // Math proof series, book 12
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Format: Kindle Edition
> Last revision was 2Aug2022. And this is AP's 152nd published book of science.
>
> Preface: I started this book in September 2021, and not until July 2022, did I uncover my gross error-- the nonexistence of the 6th Regular Polyhedron. I so much wanted there to be a 6th regular polyhedron and looking in the Internet, the world wide web, are many images of a cell of 7 regular hexagons, a central hexagon surrounded by 6 more regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. Plenty of these images, but the tipping point for me is the Goldberg polyhedron, here again the cell of 7 regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. And so, using that 7 cell as supporting evidence of the existence of a 6th Regular Polyhedron, AP proceeds to publish such. Even though I knew of the University of Utah beware caution web page stating that a vertex of 3 regular polygons is an angle of 120 +120+120= 360 degrees and thus laying flat as a plane, no bending, hence no tiling a sphere.
>
> So I published this book in Sept2021, and not until July2022, needing a coordinate system of points on a sphere for my Ecology book "_Complete Ecology_ with Generalized Faraday Law and revised food chain // Ecology science".. That I finally realize my mistake-- Uof U completely correct, and why on Earth did I want to believe Goldberg polyhedron and all those fake geometry images of regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. This is a massive computer problem of our times, in that it is super easy to make optical illusions in geometry and filling web sites with fake geometry images.
>
> Well, AP was fooled and fell victim to computer graphics showing where a sphere surface tiling of a central regular hexagon and surrounded by 6 more regular hexagons. There are many pictures and images of a sphere tiling on the Internet of 7 regular hexagons, a central one and surrounded and encircled by 6 more regular hexagons. There is even geometry of what is called Goldberg polyhedron with more pictures and images, all deceptive, all wrong. So this book ends up about the theme of how deceptive computer imaging can be, and not what AP hoped for-- the existence of a regular polyhedra with regular hexagon faces.
>
> If it were true that a cell of 7 regular polygons has a bend to it, so that it can eventually circle around a sphere surface, then my first publication of this book would have been true. But instead, the truth is the nonexistence of the 6th Regular Polyhedron.
>
>
> Cover Picture: is my iphone photograph of a soccer ball of 20 hexagons, 12 pentagons; and a glass ball covered by netting of tiny hexagons. Both objects I use in experiments of trying to proveÂ the 6th Regular Polyhedron only it is nonexistent as I eventually found in July 2022.
>
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09K4PWKVK
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 21, 2021
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 853 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 91 pages

Click here to read the complete article

Subject	Author
Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M says	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M	Mostowski Collapse
Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M	Mostowski Collapse
Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M	Archimedes Plutonium
Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M	nymbot
Re: Psychoceramic NSF Dr. Panchanathan,F. Fleming Crim, kibo Parry M	Archimedes Plutonium